Some info on the 24 MP Nikon - from a Sony engineer

Started Oct 29, 2008 | Discussions
Mel Veteran Member • Posts: 3,716
Re: Let's make it

It is not all about megapixels. If it were, the simple action of matching the Canon and Sony would suffice.

Nikon is about superior quality. It's over all image quality (not megapixels) "right now" is superior to the others with the D3/D700 sensor.

When the high res Nikon model arrives, it will do so in the same fashion and be better because of Nikon's committment to "not" simply match megapixels.
That action gets no one anywhere and would be easy to do.

Those of us who clearly see this difference that sets Nikon apart from the rest, are more than willing to wait for the same type of development in the next pro model.

Bottom line, you cannot match prices across the board in such a manner. Again, not all about megapixels.

Also FWIW, no one else has yet matched the sensor capability and image output of the D3/D700. More megapixels didn't do it.
--
Mel
http://www.mellockhartphotography.zenfolio.com
http://www.mellockhart.com

FrankG Senior Member • Posts: 2,242
Re: expensive strategy

headofdestiny wrote:

ACR/Lightroom is commonly know to be lackluster at high ISO with
A700/A900 files compared to other converters like Raw Developer,
Aperture, Bibble, Capture One, etc. You'll notice that every
rebuttal to the A900's high ISO noise is done by users of anything
other than Adobe. Unfortunately, Adobe and Sony just don't seem to
mix well with RAW conversion.

Exactly the same consideration applies to Nikon files - ask anyone who uses NX2 why they prefer it to ACR for example. At least using ACR for both provided a reasonably "level playing field". However it would definitely be interesting to see the comparison repeated with different converters.

  • Frank

 FrankG's gear list:FrankG's gear list
Nikon D500 Nikon D850 Nikon Z50
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,711
Re: expensive strategy

headofdestiny wrote:

ACR/Lightroom is commonly know to be lackluster at high ISO with
A700/A900 files compared to other converters like Raw Developer,
Aperture, Bibble, Capture One, etc. You'll notice that every
rebuttal to the A900's high ISO noise is done by users of anything
other than Adobe. Unfortunately, Adobe and Sony just don't seem to
mix well with RAW conversion.

I have a suspicion (and this might be corrected by those who know something about it) that Adobe's raw conversion is not brand neutral, as supposed by DPR, amongst others. I suspect it tries to mimic the camera suppliers preferred style of conversion, and in Sony's case, that is not a good move. I think there's a good argument for comparisons between brands which claim to be about sensor quality to be done with open source conversion software, then it's known quite clearly which algorithms are being applied, for better or worse.

-- hide signature --

Bob

headofdestiny Veteran Member • Posts: 9,226
Re: expensive strategy
-- hide signature --

I think you're probably right, Bob. At this point, I've seen so many better conversions for the A900 with non-Adobe converters that I'm planning on switching to either Capture One or Bibble 5 when I receive the A900. Interestingly, the only other mediocre RAW conversion software results I've seen for the A900 are from it's own IDC software. lol. Right now, it looks like Raw Developer may give the best results, but I'm not on a Mac platform anymore.

All of this being said, it is too bad Sony can't get their stuff to play well with Adobe, since it is the industry standard. Heck, even the Adobe CEO shoots Sony DSLRs, so you'd think ACR would work well!

Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 28,629
Re: You do not need the concept of ISO here

On the major factor of sensor design quality, which is efficiency

No, it is final image. For certain tasks current SONY 24 megapixel sensor produces better images then anything sold under Nikon brand. There are also situations when I will be using Canon 1D MkIII instead of Nikon D3, and that is when I need crop factor, and relatively low noise.

-- hide signature --
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,711
Re: You do not need the concept of ISO here

Iliah Borg wrote:

On the major factor of sensor design quality, which is efficiency

No, it is final image. For certain tasks current SONY 24 megapixel
sensor produces better images then anything sold under Nikon brand.
There are also situations when I will be using Canon 1D MkIII instead
of Nikon D3, and that is when I need crop factor, and relatively low
noise.

Final image depends very much how that sensor is used, non sensor parts such as the read chain and the OLPF have a substantial influence over the final image. I was also commenting clearly within the context of the underlying technology, my assertion being that Nikon had a more efficient technology, and therefore the ability to produce a sensor with similar resolution to, but higher overall performance than, the Sony sensor.
--
Bob

J Mankila
J Mankila Veteran Member • Posts: 4,234
One of the funniest offtopics...

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

If you don't remember, or if you never saw it, it dealt with the
Enterprise encountering an enormously powerful entity named "V'Ger"
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/V%27Ger
V'Ger was a contraction of "voyager", it had its origins in a voyager
space probe. A particularly deep and/or silly bit of dialog went like
this...

What is V'Ger?
V'Ger is that which seeks the creator.
What is the creator?
The creator is that which created V'Ger.

Sounds like something I would love to see! Now, to do the honourable thing and buy the movie from a web store, or...

In any case, thanks!

-- hide signature --

regards
Janne Mankila, Finland

14.9.2008
I have three and a half idols.
One, Sirius Black.
Two, Sam Tyler.
The rest are Hugh Lauries.
Yes, it's almost an essay:
http://jannemankila.googlepages.com

Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 28,629
Re: You do not need the concept of ISO here

Final image depends very much how that sensor is used, non sensor
parts such as the read chain and the OLPF have a substantial
influence over the final image.

Maybe most important is to know your camera, its likes and idiosyncrasies?

OK. You insist Nikon is D3/D700 are having best available today sensor, because it is most "efficient", going by Emil's tables :)) So be it.

-- hide signature --
fjbyrne
fjbyrne Veteran Member • Posts: 8,425
More ready for prime time samples
 fjbyrne's gear list:fjbyrne's gear list
Sony a7 III Zeiss Batis 85mm F1.8 Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 Sony a6000 +14 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,711
Re: You do not need the concept of ISO here

Iliah Borg wrote:

Final image depends very much how that sensor is used, non sensor
parts such as the read chain and the OLPF have a substantial
influence over the final image.

Maybe most important is to know your camera, its likes and
idiosyncrasies?

OK. You insist Nikon is D3/D700 are having best available today
sensor, because it is most "efficient", going by Emil's tables :)) So
be it.

But I never insisted that. What I said was "A good reason for Nikon not to use the A900 sensor in a flagship model is that it has become better at designing sensors than Sony (or Canon, for that matter)". Then I put forward the measurements that their sensor is the mos efficient currently used as evidence. There is some validity in the statement that the D3 sensor is the best for its purpose. If that additional efficiency was passed on to a sensor designed for another purpose, it is likely that that sensor would be outstanding also.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads